Is banning tattoos in the workplace discrimination?

[☭World Views]

Topic

[Killfacer]

What kind of tattoo? If someone has a giant swastika on their forehead then i think they should be banned.

[narcomprom]

The employer, sady, can set a dress-code even in Sweden. There must be trade unionists in your vicinity, ask them. They are always happy to assist workers about local legal issues.

[F9]

What kind of tattoo? If someone has a giant swastika on their forehead then i think they should be banned.

If s/he changed his mind, and was just an immature act?What if it was violently happened without permission?
Will bosses stop to the swastika?H&S, (A) and everything political they disagree wont follow?They will. So you shouldnt judge based on the mans tattoo, but on the person "s/he hides inside".

Fuserg9:star:

[Killfacer]

If s/he changed his mind, and was just an immature act?What if it was violently happened without permission?
Will bosses stop to the swastika?H&S, (A) and everything political they disagree wont follow?They will. So you shouldnt judge based on the mans tattoo, but on the person "s/he hides inside".

Fuserg9:star:

Well don't expect a shop to employ ex boneheads with giant swastikas tattood on their foreheads. It's not good for customer relations.

[Il Medico]

Regular tattoos no. Offensive tattoos (like Nazi stuff) then yes. One has the right to do with their body as they wish. How ever if what they do with their body propagates racism, antisemitism, or any other bigotry, then it could and should be held as a reason for not hiring. Not that it will matter after the revolution as employment is a capitalist phenomena. ;)

[Pol Pot]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

[Communist]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

Obviously not the same. People aren't born with tattoos, in most cases it's a choice. Even if Jack Daniels does the decision making. :-)


I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

Oh no. This entire post is just way out there, isn't it.

[Pogue]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

....

seriously, think before you post, it makes a world of difference...

[LOLseph Stalin]

It would depend on the tattoo. If people display tattoos that carry Racist or any other kind of prejudiced messages then there could be a problem, especially if the people affected by these symbols are regular customers(such as somebody having a Swastika tattoo and a Jew saw it). However, if the tattoos carry no such messages the people shouldn't be denied work because of them. They're not harming anybody.

[Stand Your Ground]

It would depend on the tattoo. If people display tattoos that carry Racist or any other kind of prejudiced messages then there could be a problem, especially if the people affected by these symbols are regular customers(such as somebody having a Swastika tattoo and a Jew saw it). However, if the tattoos carry no such messages the people shouldn't be denied work because of them. They're not harming anybody.
Agreed. Offensive tattoos no. Any other tattoos yes.

[Killfacer]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

What? So not employing someone who is visually threatening and offensive to a large amount of your potential customers is discrimination? Shut up.

[nuisance]

Agreed. Offensive tattoos no. Any other tattoos yes.
Out of curiousity, who would define what's offensive?
Presumably a swastika would be, but what about the hammer and sickle?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Out of curiousity, who would define what's offensive?
Presumably a swastika would be, but what about the hammer and sickle?

To some people the hammer and sickle is seen as offensive for whatever reasons. Obviously Poland feels it's offensive enough to have it banned.

[Pogue]

When I'm really old I want to get laods of blatantly anarcho-syndicalist tattoos across my face and arms, like the sabcat, the sabot, slogans such as 'fuck the boss' etc then apply for a job at tescos.

Of course such speculation is silly because the revolution will have happened before I am old but you know.

[nuisance]

To some people the hammer and sickle is seen as offensive for whatever reasons.
I'd probably go with that most people do. You know, the most historcal use of it was by the Soviet Union, and that was abit shit really.

[Killfacer]

In the UK atleast, the Hammer and Sickle doesn't have the same resonance of violence and thuggery that the Swastika does.

[Dr Mindbender]

i suppose it depends on the tattoo and the nature of the job.

If i have a big cock tattooed on my forehead i probably shouldnt work at an old peoples home or children's nursery school for example.

[Pogue]

i work at a nursery school that doubles as an old persons home and i have a cock and balls on my head, i dont understand the problem and no one else does. they ship me in for sex ed sometimes (i'm part time)

[Pol Pot]

In my country hammer and sickle is seen as ultra-offensive and you cant get into a club wearing a t-shirt with it, or even a t shirt with CCCP on it.
Same goes for serb national symbols or the symbol of orthodox christian cross (because of recent war with Serbs who are ortodox), people are ultra-sensitive on those subjects...

if people go banning things they dont agree with, than there would be a ban on hammer and sickle, then there will be discussion about banning religious symbols (like they are banned in french schools) and everything else. Either all tatoos allowed or all tatoos banned.
I believe in total freedom of speech and that includes "hate speech" or whatever. If you ban one type of hate, then somebody will one day be banning us because we spread hate against capitalism. Every idea is against something else, and the ruling class can see anything as "hate" and ban it. Just this is what are Putnin's clique using the "anti-extremism" laws in Russia. To ban those seeking change as "extremist haters"...

Here is an attempt on that in US:
Oregon Legislator Seeks Sweeping Hate Crime Laws
February 10, 2001, 02:00 PM
By AP saff

An Oregon legislator has introduced a bill that could make it a hate crime
to smash a Starbucks window or sabotage a timber company. While the bill
would expand hate crimes to include eco-terrorists, and anti-capitalist extremism, Sen. Gary George,
R-Newberg, says his real target is political correctness.

"Even the Scriptures tells you not to judge a person's thoughts but their
actions," George said, "and that's what's always bothered me about this
crime. . . . It seems to be the ultimate in political correctness."

The bill calls for an additional five years in prison for an offender
whose crime is motivated by "a hatred of people who subscribe to a set of
political beliefs that support capitalism and the needs of people with
respect to their balance with nature."

The idea for the bill came from Eric Winters, a Portland lawyer active
with a group of Libertarians called the Mainstream Liberty Caucus. He took
his proposal to Richard Burke, the 1998 Libertarian candidate for governor
who is now on George's staff.

"You should be punished for the harm you cause, and you shouldn't be
punished extra just because you don't like someone's racial background,"
Burke said. "We shouldn't put people in jail for bein bigots or for being
environmentally conscious or for not liking the WTO."

Randy Blazak, a Portland State University sociology professor who will
speak at the Oregon Hate Crimes Conference, counters that society
routinely takes into account an accused criminal's intent. "The fact is,
we punish people for what they are thinking," he said. "We do that
already. We say, 'Did you plot to kill this person or were you drunk?' "

George, a farmer, says if criminals can be singled out for crimes
motivated by racism or anti-religious sentiment, he sees no reason not to
include crimes against capitalism.

"I think this is a growing problem, and we thought there needed to be a
vehicle to discuss the issues against capitalism like eco-terrorism."

[Pogue]

I don't believe in freedom of expression for fascists. I don't think they should be treated like normal human beings.

[Pol Pot]

I don't believe in freedom of expression for fascists. I don't think they should be treated like normal human beings.

To ban their expression would show fear of them. Its like spanish inquisition banning Jewish and Muslim books in order to "stop the infection from spreading", and like Ottoman Turks took Christians as slaves because they disagreed with their "infidel, satanist, ways". they also blamed them for genocial crusades and other things.

Those fundamentalist had the same hate towards "satanists" that you have against fashs, they also had reasons that were pretty convincing to them, but the real value lies not in hate but in freedom.

And I believe that fashs have freedom of being idiots. :)

[Pogue]

To ban their expression would show fear of them. Its like spanish inquisition banning Jewish and Muslim books in order to "stop the infection from spreading", and like Ottoman Turks took Christians as slaves because they disagreed with their "infidel, satanist, ways". they also blamed them for genocial crusades and other things.

Those fundamentalist had the same hate towards "satanists" that you have against fashs, they also had reasons that were pretty convincing to them, but the real value lies not in hate but in freedom.

And I believe that fashs have freedom of being idiots. :)

I don't fear them though. I just don't think they should have freedom of expression because I recognise what this leads to. I don't think they should be given the slightest chance to practice their politics.

[Pol Pot]

I don't fear them though. I just don't think they should have freedom of expression because I recognise what this leads to. I don't think they should be given the slightest chance to practice their politics.

Well for this dillema I always remember Thomas Jeffersons words: The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither. (http://publicquotes.com/quote/29594/the-man-who-would-choose-security-over-freedom-deserves-neither.html)
and : The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (http://publicquotes.com/quote/5505/the-tree-of-liberty-must-be-refreshed-from-time-to-time-with-the-blood-of-patriots-and-tyrants.html)

[Pogue]

Well for this dillema I always remember Thomas Jeffersons words: The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither. (http://publicquotes.com/quote/29594/the-man-who-would-choose-security-over-freedom-deserves-neither.html)
and : The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (http://publicquotes.com/quote/5505/the-tree-of-liberty-must-be-refreshed-from-time-to-time-with-the-blood-of-patriots-and-tyrants.html)

I don't get it.

[gorillafuck]

I think you should be able to be employed regardless of tattoo's, because a ban on tattoo's in the workplace could lead to all sorts of things. And if they did a ban on the swastika they might also do a ban on hammer and sickles, red starts, circle A's, etc. and we can't have that.

[cleef]

In the UK atleast, the Hammer and Sickle doesn't have the same resonance of violence and thuggery that the Swastika does.

Many of the people i speak to in the UK dont even know what the hammer & sickle is let alone see it as a symbol of violence lol.

[communard resolution]

Many socialists have a patronising tendency of wanting to ban everything they don't like. I disagree with this. Who will impose the ban? And whose interests does the banning of 'extremist symbols' serve?

[Invariance]

The description of the discrimination forum somewhat answers your question: "Forum to address issues of social discrimination." An institution can discriminate on the basis of a non-social criteria. For example, night-clubs often discriminate against those who don't follow a certain dress code (e.g. you're not allowed to wear white sneakers, some require males to wear a shirt with a collar, or refuse females who wear tank-tops as I've discovered).

If a night-club, however, refused entry based on whatever demographics it so desires - e.g. refuses to allow entry Muslims, or black people, or those from a working class background, or young people, or gay people), then that would constitute social discrimination.

The extent to which that discrimination is truly oppressive depends on material circumstances - i.e whether that form of discrimination results in true economic/social disadvantage. Female toilets are discriminatory against men (lol, not that it is really enforced in a stringent manner, but let's pretend it is), but its not truly oppressive because you have an alternative - men's toilets.

The problem is when people equate non-social discrimination to social discrimination which is also oppressive, and assume they are on an equal footing. (However, some forms of social discrimination aren't oppressive - e.g. a gay men's club may refuse membership to heterosexual women, which is a form of social discrimination, but it ain't oppressive).

Refusing someone a job on the basis that they have tattoos is discriminatory. But its not a form of social discrimination (unless, of course, you can show that people who typically tend to have tattoos constitute a certain demographic, and hence that discrimination would indirectly adversely affect that specific demographic or privilege another). For example, there once existed in the police force in the UK (I'm not sure if it still exists), a height requirement. As I remember, this constituted a form of discrimination because it indirectly excluded females since females tend to be of shorter height then men. However, so far as I'm aware, tattoos cover a range of demographic groups.

Also, it really depends on other pertinent circumstances. If you work in, say, some sort of guest-relations capacity, then it is somewhat of an inherent requirement for the job that you be presentable and well-dressed - which some may argue tattoos violate. Being refused employment as a model because you're ugly is discriminatory, but it's an inherent requirement of the job that you be good looking. Lastly, one workplace having a no-tattoo policy isn't really tantamount to oppression if other avenues are open to employment. Your case for oppression becomes less convincing when you can easily rectify the situation - e.g if you can take your piercings out or wear a long-sleeved shirt which covers your tattoos. This is one reason why most forms of social discrimination are much more severe - a black man can not simply change his color.

So unless the government enforces a ban of employment for those with tatoos in all workplaces , irrespective of where those tattoos are, which would constitute a form of structural oppression since it would deny employment universally, it really isn't an oppressive form of discrimination (that's not to say I don't agree with refusing to hire someone on the basis that they have a tattoo, but I don't consider it a 'burning' issue, so to speak.).

Short answer: yes it is discriminatory, but its social repercussions are not really that severe or oppressive.

[Stand Your Ground]

Out of curiousity, who would define what's offensive?
Presumably a swastika would be, but what about the hammer and sickle?
I don't see a political tattoo being offensive.

[SubcomandanteJames]

It's not the place of any institution to ban freedom of expression in my opinion if the laborer does does his laboring, or leaves everyone else alone. Now, I'm not saying that people outside of the institution shouldn't take action against such expression. But it should be a person to person fight/debate, not one that is mandated by rules or laws.

[Killfacer]

The description of the discrimination forum somewhat answers your question: "Forum to address issues of social discrimination." An institution can discriminate on the basis of a non-social criteria. For example, night-clubs often discriminate against those who don't follow a certain dress code (e.g. you're not allowed to wear white sneakers, some require males to wear a shirt with a collar, or refuse females who wear tank-tops as I've discovered).

If a night-club, however, refused entry based on whatever demographics it so desires - e.g. refuses to allow entry Muslims, or black people, or those from a working class background, or young people, or gay people), then that would constitute social discrimination.

The extent to which that discrimination is truly oppressive depends on material circumstances - i.e whether that form of discrimination results in true economic/social disadvantage. Female toilets are discriminatory against men (lol, not that it is really enforced in a stringent manner, but let's pretend it is), but its not truly oppressive because you have an alternative - men's toilets.

The problem is when people equate non-social discrimination to social discrimination which is also oppressive, and assume they are on an equal footing. (However, some forms of social discrimination aren't oppressive - e.g. a gay men's club may refuse membership to heterosexual women, which is a form of social discrimination, but it ain't oppressive).

Refusing someone a job on the basis that they have tattoos is discriminatory. But its not a form of social discrimination (unless, of course, you can show that people who typically tend to have tattoos constitute a certain demographic, and hence that discrimination would indirectly adversely affect that specific demographic or privilege another). For example, there once existed in the police force in the UK (I'm not sure if it still exists), a height requirement. As I remember, this constituted a form of discrimination because it indirectly excluded females since females tend to be of shorter height then men. However, so far as I'm aware, tattoos cover a range of demographic groups.

Also, it really depends on other pertinent circumstances. If you work in, say, some sort of guest-relations capacity, then it is somewhat of an inherent requirement for the job that you be presentable and well-dressed - which some may argue tattoos violate. Being refused employment as a model because you're ugly is discriminatory, but it's an inherent requirement of the job that you be good looking. Lastly, one workplace having a no-tattoo policy isn't really tantamount to oppression if other avenues are open to employment. Your case for oppression becomes less convincing when you can easily rectify the situation - e.g if you can take your piercings out or wear a long-sleeved shirt which covers your tattoos. This is one reason why most forms of social discrimination are much more severe - a black man can not simply change his color.

So unless the government enforces a ban of employment for those with tatoos in all workplaces , irrespective of where those tattoos are, which would constitute a form of structural oppression since it would deny employment universally, it really isn't an oppressive form of discrimination (that's not to say I don't agree with refusing to hire someone on the basis that they have a tattoo, but I don't consider it a 'burning' issue, so to speak.).

Short answer: yes it is discriminatory, but its social repercussions are not really that severe or oppressive.

I have a tattoo of shit streaming down my leg.

[The Situationist]

If someone has an offensive tattoo on their face then just have them cover it with makeup.

As for tattoos in general, they are so commonplace now, that employers won't be able to avoid them soon.

[Ink]

I'd say yes, it is discrimination.

I have a full sleeve, nothing vulgar or offensive, and I would not like being refused a job simply because I have tattoos.

Although, I wouldn't really mind if they asked me to cover it up.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes, it's a form of discrimination, but at the same time it's an acceptable practice and quite frankly clumping it into the same category as social discrimination is more offensive than asking an employee to hide their skull-and-crossbone tattoos. Invariance made quite an eloquent response.

"Offensive" is a highly subjective term. The nature of discrimination is not so easily black and white. Working from the standpoint of social discrimination, if an artist wants to select a black (or white) model due to a particular idea in his (or her) head, that is not the same thing as a food distributor selectively passing over minorities.

Discrimination is not inherently evil. If you think it is, then I suppose you have no preferences to who you sleep with, eh?